When I first addressed the race for Best Art Direction in August, I spoke of how the branch tends to favor period pieces and fantasy films. Considering the research involved in the former and the often showy creativity on display in the latter, this is hardly surprising.
That said, I often feel badly for exceptional contemporary films that have been slighted here in the past. Examples from this decade immediately popping to mind include David Wasco’s tremendously clever sets for “The Royal Tenenbaums” and Alex McDowell’s ultra-realistic airport design on “The Terminal.”
While many of the titles in contention are the same over two months later, the race has nevertheless undergone some significant changes. Primarily this is because many of the films have opened, been unveiled at festivals and/or revealed glimpses via trailers and other materials.
At the top of the list, still, is Rob Marshall’s “Nine.” John Myhre won this category on both of his previous two collaborations with Marshall. Dabbling in the world of Fellini seems like the perfect opportunity to grab his fifth nomination.
While the “Sherlock Holmes” trailer has been around for a while, the verdict is still out on the latest film from Guy Ritchie – a director whose work to date has hardly been typical AMPAS fodder. Nevertheless, Sarah Greenwood has been nominated twice before for capturing period England, Joe Wright’s “Pride & Prejudice” and “Atonement” doing the trick. She’ll be doing the same here, albeit on a much larger scale. A nomination seems a distinct possibility in my opinion.
Also unseen is Naomi Shohan’s design of Peter Jackson’s “The Lovely Bones.” Jackson’s last four films were all nominated here. Then again, they were all filled with grand sets, whether in “The Lord of the Rings” of “King Kong.” But while “The Lovely Bones” will likely not be as extravagant, it will have to capture the 1970s while simultaneously bringing Jackson’s unique creative visions to life. If the film is a hit, I could see crossover attention here.
As always, we are still waiting on Clint Eastwood, this year with “Invictus.” However, the trailer leads me to believe the work will be too contemporary for James Murakami to get a second consecutive nomination.
James Cameron’s “Avatar” debuted a few trailers since our last look at the field. But while the film remains unseen, it appears incredibly reliant on computer imagery, not something usually embraced by this branch. Nevertheless, Rick Carter has already been singled out in the precursor circuit this season, so maybe there is some fire there.
Other films have had their releases and, as such, it’s easier to see where they might be headed. I still maintain that Janet Patterson is among the leading contenders in the costume design category for her threads on “Bright Star.” I cannot say the same in this category, though. Her work was very fine indeed, but the film did not catch on like I thought it might, nor were the sets as grandiose as this branch often likes.
A film I am confident is out of the running is Mira Nair’s “Amelia.” Opinions on Stephanie Carroll’s work aside, I cannot fathom the film earning any nominations apart from possibly its lead actress and its cinematographer. And I consider both of those longshots. The film, as you know, has been ravaged and the studio is already on to other awards prospects.
K. K. Barrett’s designs in “Where the Wild Things Are,” on the other hand, were clever indeed. But I also consider Barrett to be an extremely unlikely nominee. The work was too reliant on externals and the film was not enough of an “instant classic” to garner attention in categories like Best Art Direction, in my opinion.
Fading from the race would be Nathan Crowley for “Public Enemies.” Though I originally felt he might have the capacity to survive his film’s lackluster performance due to the quality of his work, the film seems to have already been pretty much forgotten. However, as a recipient of two nominations in recent years, with his nomination for “The Prestige” being somewhat unexpected, I wouldn’t rule him out.
Stuart Craig is, without any doubt, a giant in this field. The eight-time nominee and three-time winner surprised many (including me) by earning a nomination for “Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire” four years ago despite the second and third entries in this series being snubbed. While this leads me to think he could score again for “The Half-Blood Prince” in a weak field, I still believe that nomination remains somewhat of an anomaly, a sequel being snubbed where its predecessors were not nominated. Then again, “Harry Potter” is a much longer series than most.
Rising in the race, however, would be the aforementioned David Wasco for “Inglourious Basterds.” In my opinion, he has been egregiously snubbed on multiple occasions, for “Kill Bill: Vol. 1,” “Pulp Fiction” and “The Royal Tenenbaums.”
While I concede none of those titles were typical Oscar fare, he likely has his best chance to date with his latest collaboration with Tarantino. Though the film is still not the definition of Oscar bait, it did surprisingly well at the box office and with critics. Moreover, the work is Wasco’s most Oscar-friendly to date.
And then there are the films that have finally been bought since we last took a look. Michael Hoffman’s “The Last Station,” for instance, could make a contender out of Patrizia von Brandenstein again. She used to be a favorite in this category in the 1980s, racking up three nominations, including a win. Could she return?
And then there is Dave Warren and Terry Gilliam’s (along with Anastasia Masaro) design of “The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus.” I have no doubt that her work is top-notch and varied. At the same time, however, I’m not at all sure whether Gilliam’s film will catch on.
I’ll conclude with two similar titles that were simply not on my radar in this category the last time I explored it. The first is Tom Ford’s “A Single Man.” Dan Bishop, of “Mad Men” fame, is responsible. If the Weinsteins play their cards right, I could easily see Bishop’s trendy designs in the running.
And lastly, there is the similarly titled “A Serious Man” from the Coen brothers. Those who love this latest effort really love it, and Jess Gonchor’s extremely detailed design seems to be something the branch could embrace – if they’re paying attention.
And that’s all for this week. What are your thoughts on the Best Art Direction category? Have your say in the comments section below!
Comments
16 responses to “TECH SUPPORT: Best Art Direction — Volume II”
I can’t say for sure what’s in and what’s out, but these are my picks:
A Serious Man
The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus
Inglourious Basterds
Nine
Where the Wild Things Are
I can’t help but feel that the actual nominees are going to be really lackluster just because of the branch’s reluctance to go beyond period or fantasy work (and for period/fantasy films it’s not a banner year).
I can so easily see Avatar being left out because 99% of its art direction is presented through digital creations and thus lacks the set decoration half of the award. Maybe it’s time for the Academy to split Art Direction into two categories, one for Art Direction/Production Design and another for Set Design/Decoration as more and more films use digital. That could also open up animated films to be eligible for Art Direction, as they should be because frankly, art direction is art direction. Whether you’re making Bright Star, Avatar, Fantatic Mr. Fox or Up, you can bet that all the art directors start by sketching ideas on paper.
Nine seems like the only sure shot at this point.
The five best I’ve seen so far this year:
Watchmen was one of those movies with a ton of ambition but no clear structure. That hurts it as a movie, but certainly not as a showpiece for the art department.
Star Trek did a fresh update to a world we’re used to seeing in reruns of two great series and more recently in tired spinoff series.
Inglourious Basterds combined history, movie history, and whatever’s in Quentin Tarantino’s head to make a terrific tour around wartorn Europe.
Public Enemies was one of those rare period movies that felt authentic of its time. Too bad it wasn’t a very good movie.
Cheri. Another movie that felt period authentic. It was also glamorous as all-get-out, which was essential to the picture. Again, too bad it wasn’t a very engaging movie.
As by-numbers a nominee as it would be, one can’t discount “The Young Victoria” here. (Rather like “The Duchess,” which also popped up here despite attracting attention mainly for its costumes.)
I think Andrew McAlpine’s work in “An Education” is terrific, though almost certainly too low-key to show up here. And the Academy probably wouldn’t even consider Nelson Lowry’s designs in “Fantastic Mr Fox” as true production design, but they merit consideration.
aspect ratio, to my knowledge, animated films are eligible. But they just never consider them. It would really be irritating if Avatar can garner a nomination just because it is supposed to be this next big thing, because for all practical purposes, it is also an animated film. Last year, Axiom’s design in Wall-E was monumental, but they snubbed it, though it was nominated by the guild(where it lost to The Dark Knight!).
I agree with Gerard, they miss many interesting quirky set designs. Synecdoche was great last year, infact very important to the narrative. If I could call, I would say Nine is gonna win this category.
Maybe “Moon” will earn a well-deserved nod here.
I think a stong case can also be made for District 9. Those sets felt so real, I could smell them. I also have a fondness for the design of Watchmen, but it’s a fools hope that it’ll be recognized.
id go with inglorious basterds and the lovely bones, the other 3 can be whatever
I just saw “A Serious Man” and I think it definitely deserves to be nominated in this category
^^^
Agreed! Which is why I tossed it into my predix a few months back when I first saw the film. I really think this branch will take note.
Add me to the “A Serious Man” fan club in this category, though I’m not as sure that the branch will notice such subtle, un-pretty work. Fingers crossed.
I’d have nominated Jess Gonchor for “No Country” too.
What about Karl Jiuliusson (Lars Von Trier’s production designer) who also did The Hurt Locker as well as Anti-Christ? Almost invisible production design, seamless and outstanding.
Nine and Basterds seem like good bets to me and I’ve been predicting Doctor Parnassus from the day after the Oscars so no need to stop yet. I’ve felt that Holmes will show up SOMEWHERE (here, costume or one of the sound categories) but can’t truly decide where. Art Direction does seem like the most obvious choice.
I really do wish this branch would take some initiative and nominate an animated film. Specifically “Coraline” or “Mary and Max” (the latter of which received an Aus Film Institute nomination for its production design), both of which are more ingenious and inventive than more of the live action films.
I’d also like to see “The White Ribbon” in the race since it’s cold austere sets are part of the reason why the movie worked to the extent that it did (that is to say, it’s very flawed nonetheless).
Art Direction Nominees
Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince
The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus
Inglorious Basterds
Nine
Where the Wild Things Are
I love Cheri, I think it is a very engaging movie¡¡
A well deserved nomination to Alan Mc Donald¡
I’ve been wondering about what category the creature outfits in Where the Wild Things Are go under.. Is it Art Direction because they’re not worn by the actual actors but part of the look of the film and had to be designed, or are they Costume Design because in a way they are costumes.. Or are they considered Visual Effects?
It’s a shame really, because it feels like the film is going to get snubbed in all these categories because it’s not so clear cut what’s what. Art Direction that doesn’t encompass the creatures probably doesn’t stand a chance, and they probably aren’t considered costumes in the traditional sense to be nominated there..